Looking back to the performance of the Legal Complaints Service (LCS) and Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) in complaint-handling for the year ended 31 March 2008, I announced that, while complaints were not handled in accordance with the Law Society’s plan, I would not levy a penalty. In reaching this decision I took into account several factors including that, while LCS and SRA missed five targets, six targets were met and two exceeded.

Targets set for LCS and SRA were still rooted in stabilising the basics – getting them to apply their own processes consistently for the majority of consumers using the service. Improvements were made in every area for which I set a target. However, we must set this in context. The cost of handling complaints remains high – at £31m for LCS. It costs much more to handle each complaint than in comparable organisations.

A clear difference in performance is apparent between LCS and SRA, particularly in relation to quality targets. LCS met only three of its seven quality targets whereas the SRA’s performance was at targeted levels for five of its six quality targets. As a result, I have decided in future to set separate targets for LCS and SRA.

This brings me to my decision in relation to the 2008/09 plan, which I declared inadequate and for which I recently imposed a penalty of £275,000.

Again, reasonable targets for 2008/09 were set and discussed with the Law Society, LCS and SRA. We discussed the levels required to move beyond the basics and towards delivering an effective and efficient service. LCS has publicly expressed a desire to move forward from process-driven targets to measuring outcomes.

However, the plan submitted for 2008/09 by LCS and SRA on behalf of the Law Society contained a number of surprises. The plan showed a reluctance by LCS to commit fully to the target levels I had set. Proposals put forward by LCS included: delaying working towards some targets, one by as much as nine months; proposing alternative levels that we know can already be met; and not committing to sufficient cost efficiencies.

It is confusing why LCS – an organisation so publicly confident about its performance – should show such lack of confidence in itself to deliver within a plan submitted to its regulator. This is not the time for LCS to sit back and admire its handiwork. There is much important work still to do before complaints-handling is undertaken by the new Office for Legal Complaints. The profession and consumers cannot run the risk of LCS allowing backlogs to arise that could then compromise the initial performance of the new complaints-handling body.

2007/08 performance indicates that LCS and SRA are at last on the road to where they should be. My decision not to impose a penalty reflects this, but the destination of effectiveness and efficiency has not yet been reached.

By contrast, the 2008/09 plan indicates that LCS is an organisation still willing only to aim for performance levels lower than those of which I am confident it can and should achieve.